Perl 6 is not finished,
but you can already play with it.
I hope this article will encourage you to try it.
Begin by installing Pugs (http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?pugs),
a Perl 6 compiler implemented in Haskell.
Note that you will also need Haskell (see directions in the Pugs INSTALL file for how to get it).

Of course,
Pugs is not finished.
It couldn't be.
The Perl 6 design is still in progress.
However,
Pugs still has many key features that are going to turn our favorite language into something even greater.

I'm about to take a big risk.
I'm going to show you a script that performs Newton's method.
Please don't give up before you get started.

Sir Isaac Newton was a noted computer scientist and sometime astronomer,
physicist,
and mathematician,
as the communications of the ACM once described him.
He and others developed a fairly simple way of finding square roots.
It goes like this:

This version always finds the square root of 9, which conveniently is 3. This aids testing because I don't have to remember a more interesting square root, for example, the square root of 2. When I run this, the output is:

The last number is the square root of 9 accurate to three decimal places.

Here's what's going on.

Once Pugs is installed, you can use it in a shebang line (on Unix or Cygwin, at least). Otherwise, invoke the script through pugs as you would for perl:

$ B<pugs newton>

To let Perl 6 know that I want Perl 6 and not Perl 5, I type use v6;.

In Perl 6, the basic primitive types are still scalar, array, and hash. There are also more types of scalars. In this case, I'm using the floating-point type Num for both the target (the number whose square root I want) and the guess (which I hope will improve until it is the square root of the target). I can use this syntax in Perl 5. In Perl 6 it will be the norm (or so I hope). I've used my to limit the scope of the variables just as in Perl 5.

Newton's method always needs a guess. Without explaining, I'll say that for square roots the guess makes little difference. To make it easy, I guessed the number itself. Obviously, that's not a good guess, but it works eventually.

The while loop goes until the square of the guess is close to the target. How close is up to me. I chose .005 to give about three places of accuracy.

Inside the loop, the code improves the guess at each step using Newton's formula. I won't explain it at all. (I've resisted the strong temptation from my math-teacher days to explain a lot more. Be glad I resisted. But if you are curious, consult a calculus textbook. Or better yet, send me email. I'd love to say more!) I'll present a more general form of the method soon, which may jog the memories of the calculus lovers in the audience, or not.

Finally, at the end of each iteration, I used say to print the answer. This beats writing: print "$guess\n";.

Except for using say and declaring the type of the numbers to be Num, there's not much to separate the above script from one I might have written in Perl 5. That's okay. It's about to get more Perl 6ish.

While it's fine to have a script that finds square roots, it would be better to generalize this in a couple of ways. One good change is to make it a module so that others can share it. Another is to turn loose the power of Newton and look for other kinds of roots, like cube roots and other even more exotic ones.

First, I'll turn the script above into a module that exports a newton sub. Then, I'll tackle generalizing the method.

Here begins the familiar package declaration borrowed from Perl 5. (In Perl 6 itself, package identifies Perl 5 source code. The <a href="http://search.cpan.org/v6?v6">v6</a> module lets you run some Perl 6 code in Perl 5 programs.) Immediately following is use v6;, just as in the original script.

Declaring subs in Perl 6 doesn't have to be any different than in Perl 5, but it should be. This one says it takes a numeric variable called target. Such genuine prototypes allow for Perl 6 to report compilation errors when you call a sub with the wrong arguments. That single step will move Perl 6 onto the list of possible languages for a lot of large-scale application development shops.

At the end of the declaration, just before the opening brace for the body, I included is export. This puts newton into the namespace of whoever uses the module (at least, if they use the module in the normal way; they could explicitly decline to take imports). There is no need to explicitly use Exporter and set up @EXPORT or its friends.

The rest of the code is the same, except that it returns the answer and no longer proclaims its guess at each iteration.

Adding genuine, compiler-enforced parameters to sub declarations is a giant leap forward for Perl. For many people, that particular looseness in Perl 5 keeps it out of any discussions about what language to use for a project. I experienced this unfortunate reality firsthand in my last job. There's a lot more to declarations in Perl 6, though.

Suppose I want to give the caller control over the accuracy of the method, yet I want to provide a sensible default if that caller doesn't want to think of a good one. I might write:

Here I've introduced two new optional parameters: $verbose, for whether to print at each step (the default is to keep quiet) and $epsilon, the Greek letter we math types often use for tolerances.

While the caller might use this exactly as before, she now has options. She might say:

my $answer = newton(165, verbose => 1, epsilon => .00005);

This gives extra accuracy and prints the values at each iteration (which prints the value of the last iteration twice: once in the loop and again in the driving script). Note that the named parameters may appear in any order.

The second problem is that the caller may not know how to calculate $fprime. Perhaps I should make calculus a prerequisite for using the module, but that just might scare away a few potential users. I want to provide a default, but the default depends on what the function is. If I knew what $f was, I could estimate $fprime for users.

Perl 6 provides precisely this ability. Here's the final module, a bit at a time:

For those who care (surely at least one person does), this is a second-order centered difference. For those who don't, its an approximation suitable for use in the newton sub. It takes a function and a number and returns an estimate of the value needed for division.

Note that the caller must supply the function f. The one in the example is for cube roots.

If the caller provides the derivative as fprime, I use it. Otherwise, as in the example, I use approxfprime. Whereas a caller-supplied fprime would take one number and return another, approxfprime needs a number and a function. The function needed is the one the caller passed to newton. How do you pass it on? Currying—that is, supplying one or more of the parameters of a function once, then using the simplified version after that.

In Perl 6, you can obtain a reference to a sub by placing the sub sigil & in front of the function's name (providing it is in scope). To curry, add .assuming to the end of that and supply values for one or more arguments in parentheses. All of this is harder to talk about than to do:

$fprime = &approxfprime.assuming( f => $f ),

This code means that the caller might supply a value. If this is the case, use it. Otherwise, use approxfprime with the caller's function in place of f.

Perl 6 calling conventions are extremely well designed. Not only do they allow compile-time parameter checking, they also allow named parameters with or without complex defaults, even including curried default functions. This is going to be very powerful. In fact, with Pugs, it already is.

There is a slightly more detailed version of the example from this article in the examples/algorithms/ directory of the Pugs distribution. It's called Newton.pm.

As much as it pains me to say it, if you need heavy duty numerics, don't code in pure Perl. Rather, use FORTRAN, C, or Perl with PDL. And be careful. Numerics is full of unexpected gotchas, which lead to poor performance or outright incorrect results. Unfortunately, Newton's method, in the general case, is notoriously risky. When in doubt about numerics, do as I do and consult a professional in the field.